Should Kerr have been let go?

eirebhoy

I just want to see what people's opinions are now just over a week after his contract wasn't renewed. A poll on this forum showed the majority of people wanted rid of Kerr. There has been a bit of speculation since then.

17th October - Alex Ferguson was the first of the big names to rule himself out.
22nd Oct - Ranieri lets FAI know he's interested in job.
27th Oct - Martin O'Neill rules himself out.
27th Oct - Philippe Troussier (who just revealed was in talks with the FAI but didn't want to wait 6 months to take up the job) is appointed by Morocco.
27th Oct - Frank Stapleton reveals he applied when McCarthy resigned and will do so again.
28th Oct - George Burley rules himself out.
28th Oct - Roddy Collins reveals he will send his CV into the FAI if he keeps Rovers up.

As of now the top 3 Irish in the odds are John Aldridge, Liam Brady and Frank Stapleton. People like O'Leary and Brady have ruled themselves out but they basically had to.

Depressing reading and I doubt very much we'll get anyone nearly as good as Kerr. Kerr made mistakes, he would have learnt from them (as previous Ireland managers did) and deserved a 2nd full campaign. He at least should have been kept as an option rather than telling his agent they won't be renewing his contract.

Chucky the tree

No

The mistakes he made were shocking and comical in a painful way. He showed he wasnt a good enough manager and rightly didnt have his contract extended.

Davey Devil

Don't know

I voted for him not to go origionally for this very reason. I felt that no decent managers would want the job so we may as well stick with Kerr. He made a few mistakes but despite what was written in the media I believe the team were fully on his side and he would learn from hs errors.

I'd be happy with Burley but with the Premiership teams due a sacking or two I'm sure he'd rather go there. The other canditates are quite Frankly (pun intended) laughable.

super_furry

No

Yes. He just wasn't good enough tactically.

Lemlin

No

Troussier was my hope but the FAI made their usual mess of it.

eirebhoy

Don't know

Chucky the tree wrote:

The mistakes he made were shocking and comical in a painful way. He showed he wasnt a good enough manager and rightly didnt have his contract extended.

No worse than McCarthy's. Actually, McCarthy's were worse. He got a much easier ride than Kerr (I'm not against McCarthy btw, I'd love to see him do well). We've heard all about Macedonia, twice. 3-5-2 against Iceland with Keane as sweeper. Mark Kennedy in free role against Belgium. Forcing one of our best ever full backs (Irwin) into retirement by treating him badly. 4-5-1 away to both Yugoslavia and Croatia. I could go on, haven't even mentioned drawing at home to Lithuania.

That was all in his first two campaigns. He did superbly well in his 3rd campaign (a term which Kerr didn't get). Even still, Kerr was slated for conceding leads to draw games. McCarthy's team also lost a couple of leads in that excellent campaign. He also persisted on playing Duff up front and wouldn't drop the terrible Kilbane from the left wing.

The FAI are not going to appoint better than Kerr.

Chucky the tree

No

eirebhoy wrote:

No worse than McCarthy's. Actually, McCarthy's were worse. He got a much easier ride than Kerr (I'm not against McCarthy btw, I'd love to see him do well). We've heard all about Macedonia, twice. 3-5-2 against Iceland with Keane as sweeper. Mark Kennedy in free role against Belgium. Forcing one of our best ever full backs (Irwin) into retirement by treating him badly. 4-5-1 away to both Yugoslavia and Croatia. I could go on, haven't even mentioned drawing at home to Lithuania.

That was all in his first two campaigns. He did superbly well in his 3rd campaign (a term which Kerr didn't get). Even still, Kerr was slated for conceding leads to draw games. McCarthy's team also lost a couple of leads in that excellent campaign. He also persisted on playing Duff up front and wouldn't drop the terrible Kilbane from the left wing.

The FAI are not going to appoint better than Kerr.

They wont appoint anyone worse, dont think its possible. I dont really think it makes a difference how long the presvious managers got. History doesnt matter. When deciding to renew a managers contract they should look on his results and general performance, not how long the previous managers got.

Kerrs general management was up good enough.

KdjaCL

Chucky the tree wrote:

They wont appoint anyone worse, dont think its possible. I dont really think it makes a difference how long the presvious managers got. History doesnt matter. When deciding to renew a managers contract they should look on his results and general performance, not how long the previous managers got.

Kerrs general management was up good enough.

Could get Benitez/Houllier we be deadly in friendlies but not where it counts. And also the rest of your post was total bollix so sack a manager who had emmm 1 defeat in his Qf campaign against some rabble from France or somfin. Get the isreali manager eh he had no defeats


kdjac

padser

No

Was there a reason that the FAI didnt want Troussier for 6 months?? The only reason i can think of is to save on wages. Please someone tell me thats not the reason.

Chucky the tree

No

KdjaC wrote:

Could get Benitez/Houllier we be deadly in friendlies but not where it counts. And also the rest of your post was total bollix so sack a manager who had emmm 1 defeat in his Qf campaign against some rabble from France or somfin. Get the isreali manager eh he had no defeats


kdjac

Your right. Give him a new contract. Sure we only finished 4th behind isreali and the swiss. Best manager ever.

Pigman II

No

I'm delighted he's gone (as much today as I was 2 weeks ago) and (bar possibly Souness, AlcoFerguson (no chance) or someone unqualified) I'm not worried in the slightest who the FAI eventually get or how long it takes.

KdjaCL

ahhh right the manager makes **** players score 1 goal (tbh all we needed).


I go back to my book on football to see "how not scoring cos of **** players makes a manager a muppet" book. Odd just says play your best 11 on page 1.


kdjac

Pigman II

No

Ah yes, all those shít players of ours that have somehow almost to-a-man tricked Premiership, UEFACup and ChampionsLeague quality teams to pay their wages for them week-in week-out. It's amazing Kerr got as much out of them as he did.

Out of interest would you say Israel and Switzerland man for man had better players than us? I certainly wouldn't.

Davey Devil

Don't know

Half those players can't get 90 mins regularly with their clubs.

I think the Swiss have better players than Ireland. So many of our players are unbelievably over-rated.

Pigman II

No

Davey Devil wrote:

Half those players can't get 90 mins regularly with their clubs.

Yes but what does that mean? How many players actually get 90minutes regularily with their clubs anymore? The game has moved on from the days when you could play an entire season with 14 players but most people don't seem to accept this when it comes to rating an international player.

Plus the fact is that more and more of the worlds top players are converging onto the top half-dozen leagues in Europe and to get any kind of go these days is much more difficult than it would have been 10-20 years ago due to the increased competition for places.

As far as I'm concerned if you're getting 15-25 games a season with any premiershiip club then you're as good as a guy who got 30-38 15 years ago.

eirebhoy

Don't know

Chucky the tree wrote:

They wont appoint anyone worse, dont think its possible. I dont really think it makes a difference how long the presvious managers got. History doesnt matter. When deciding to renew a managers contract they should look on his results and general performance, not how long the previous managers got.

Kerrs general management was up good enough.

What I pointed out was McCarthy was just as bad in his first 2 campaigns yet still got an extra shot. Plus Kerr took over a terrible team and had 1 friendly to sort it out. He was forced to play Doc and Duff up front from the start as he had no time to experiment.

Lemlin

No

eirebhoy wrote:

What I pointed out was McCarthy was just as bad in his first 2 campaigns yet still got an extra shot. Plus Kerr took over a terrible team and had 1 friendly to sort it out. He was forced to play Doc and Duff up front from the start as he had no time to experiment.

I don't think its fair to say Kerr took over a terrible team. Duff, Carr, Finnan, Robbie Keane and Andy Reid are good players but they haven't performed for Ireland recently. Maybe some of the reason for that rests with the manager.

IMO exciting times may lie ahead for Ireland. Stephen Elliott looks like he's starting to come into his own, Shay Given might as well be a brick wall in goal, young players like Stephen Ireland and Joey O'Brien are coming through and we've a decent enough foundation already in place with players like Richard Dunne, Andy Reid, Duff and Keane.

Pigman II

No

eirebhoy wrote:

What I pointed out was McCarthy was just as bad in his first 2 campaigns yet still got an extra shot. Plus Kerr took over a terrible team and had 1 friendly to sort it out. He was forced to play Doc and Duff up front from the start as he had no time to experiment.

No he wasn't. McCarthys results even in 1996-00 were clearly better than anything Kerr did for us during his time ... and it wasn't as hard on the eye to watch either thankfully. Fact is Kerr had 8 opportunities to show us he could deliver us a win against a better-than-rubbish side and he failed on every single occasion.

Sure McCarthy made mistakes in his first two campaigns but could you honestly have seen a Kerr team go to somewhere like Lithuania needing a win and actually deliver the goods? That was the difference between Kerr and MmcC. Kerr played it safe at times when he should have gone for broke. Ironically Mick eventually lost his Ireland job precisely due to this 'who dares wins' approach v Swiss ... but at least he was brave enough to give it a go on many occasions. That's something you could never say about a Kerr Ireland team.

Also as for Kerr getting 1 friendly to 'sort it out' he was in charge for 7 games before he had to pit his wits against anything that could be considered a decent international side. In fact 3 of thos matches weren't even competitive so he had ample opportunity to sort something out. Hell the match we drew (and blew) against Russia in Sept03 was their managers FIRST game in charge so who exactly had the right to be making excuses in this regard?

eirebhoy

Don't know

Lemlin wrote:

I don't think its fair to say Kerr took over a terrible team.

I did say team, not set of players. He took over a team that had Gary Breen at centre half, Gary Kelly at right back and Ian Harte at left back, Matt Holland and Kinsella in the centre, Jason McAteer on the right, Kevin Kibane on the left and Duff up front. He had to change that all around and at the start didn't have time to experiment.

Pigman II wrote:

Also as for Kerr getting 1 friendly to 'sort it out' he was in charge for 7 games before he had to pit his wits against anything that could be considered a decent international side.

It does say a lot when the worst team in our group had players like Kaladze, Kobishvili, Tskitishvili and Arveladze. All 4 would walk into our team and probably more of the team that played us would too. Giorgi Kinkladze would have got in ahead of Kilbane anyway.

Lemlin

No

I did say team, not set of players. He took over a team that had Gary Breen at centre half, Gary Kelly at right back and Ian Harte at left back, Matt Holland and Kinsella in the centre, Jason McAteer on the right, Kevin Kibane on the left and Duff up front. He had to change that all around and at the start didn't have time to experiment.

Still the team that got us into World Cup 2002 and then got to the Second Round. And a team that should of been well capable of beating Russia at home.

Even if Kerr had time to experiment, I doubt he would of. He's not exactly well-known for experimenting in friendles. I'm not saying he should of done a Sven job but he should of started a few new players in games like the friendly against China,

In the end, one statistic says it all, we haven't beaten a team from the top 80 in the world since Kerr took over. That's a shocking statistic.

eirebhoy

Don't know

Lemlin wrote:

Still the team that got us into World Cup 2002 and then got to the Second Round. And a team that should of been well capable of beating Russia at home.

McCarthy's team was well capable of beating, Macedonia x 2, Iceland at home, Lithuania at home, Romania at home, Belgium at home and Turkey at home.

Lemlin wrote:

Even if Kerr had time to experiment, I doubt he would of. He's not exactly well-known for experimenting in friendles. I'm not saying he should of done a Sven job but he should of started a few new players in games like the friendly against China,

He used friendlies very well imo. Not one player that hasn't been capped deserved to be under Kerr that I can think of. He let the players play together getting used to each other while slowly introducing new players.

Your last point is one I can't argue with but John O'Shea might have changed that in Paris, Duff might have changed that against Israel. It was only a matter of time in my opinion though and you can't compensate for luck. What luck? Losing Keane against Russia. Losing Cunningham for Basel. Israel home game was mostly down to luck that we didn't win. Losing Roy for Israel home. Losing Roy and Duff for Switzerland home. I don't expect to beat any half decent team away from home anyway as Ireland don't.

Big Ears

Don't know

Never sack a manager without a replacement , its obvious the FAI hadn't already selected a replacement and we could now end up with Aldridge or Stapleton .

however bad people think Kerr is he's better than those two .

Lemlin

No

He used friendlies very well imo. Not one player that hasn't been capped deserved to be under Kerr that I can think of. He let the players play together getting used to each other while slowly introducing new players.

Your last point is one I can't argue with but John O'Shea might have changed that in Paris, Duff might have changed that against Israel. It was only a matter of time in my opinion though and you can't compensate for luck. What luck? Losing Keane against Russia. Losing Cunningham for Basel. Israel home game was mostly down to luck that we didn't win. Losing Roy for Israel home. Losing Roy and Duff for Switzerland home. I don't expect to beat any half decent team away from home anyway as Ireland don't.

You may call it a lack of luck. I'd call it tactical naivety. Israel home game was down to Kerr not putting on another striker in place of Keane when he got injured. Israel away game was drawn because we took a lead and sat back yet again.

Ireland had a team well capable of beating the Swiss at home but Kerr made another bunch of bogus decisions eg. Steven Reid not starting after looking like Ireland's best midfielder when he came on against Cyprus and then making a mockery of Kerr's decision not to start him when he did get on against the Swiss by actually trying to create something.

In all fairness, I'd take your post with a pinch of salt. Can you imagine if Kerr, or any other manager for that matter, went into a press conference and said that they hadn't delivered in a successive run of key matches because of luck. They'd be shot.

Pigman II

No

eirebhoy wrote:

It does say a lot when the worst team in our group had players like Kaladze, Kobishvili, Tskitishvili and Arveladze. All 4 would walk into our team and probably more of the team that played us would too. Giorgi Kinkladze would have got in ahead of Kilbane anyway.

Not really. I judge a team by how they perform on the pitch and not who they have in their starting line up.

Georgia may have had players like Kaladze, Kobishvili, Tskitishvili and Arveladze but their problem was they didn't have players 'like' Kaladze, Kobishvili, Tskitishvili and Arveladze (7 to be precise) and that's one of the reasons why they were rubbish a TEAM.

To draw a parallel, I'm sure the likes of Brady, Lawrenson and Stapleton would have walked into most top international sides back in the early 1980's but that statement didn't necessarily mean Ireland were anything more than a disorganised 3rd rate international side.

randomfella

Don't know

I was originally all for him to go. But now looking back he shouldn't have gone.

eirebhoy

Don't know

Lemlin wrote:

Israel away game was drawn because we took a lead and sat back yet again.

We didn't sit back. We stopped Israel's game plan of catching us on the break by keeping possession. Even still, Kerr was telling them to push up and create more. Also, Elliott wasn't getting his game for Sunderland in divison 1 because of a mixture of bad form and a virus. Kerr said he wasn't himself in training. Duff had scored and got motm in his previous 2 games up front. making 3 changes wasn't the right decision but it was more coincidental that they scored after that as they got into the game well before that.

Lemlin

No

eirebhoy wrote:

We didn't sit back. We stopped Israel's game plan of catching us on the break by keeping possession. Even still, Kerr was telling them to push up and create more. Also, Elliott wasn't getting his game for Sunderland in divison 1 because of a mixture of bad form and a virus. Kerr said he wasn't himself in training. Duff had scored and got motm in his previous 2 games up front. making 3 changes wasn't the right decision but it was more coincidental that they scored after that as they got into the game well before that.

So why did he bring on Steve Finnan, a defensive midfielder, when Andy Reid was on the bench? Ireland sat back for 80 minutes after they scored. As Kerr likes to do, even though he's been punished by teams for it repeatedly.

And, even if I do accept your response for not winning that game, what about all the other matches we should of won under Kerr? The man doesn't seem to be able to get his team to go for the jugular like they need to.

eirebhoy

Don't know

He'll prove himself in time, it won't be with us (un)fortunately.

BTW - Luck plays more of a part then we'd like to think. If we has almost any other ref when we played Holland we probably wouldn't have got to the 2002 WC as RVN was denied a clear penalty.

Jivin Turkey

No

I think Kerr should have been let go, just because despite all the mishaps on the way, he never seemed to learn from any of them. He says now he knows so much more, and has so much more to offer, but where was all this knowledge a month ago?

Our next qualifying group is going to be a tough one because we are fourth seeds. There would be no point in giving Kerr "one last crap at the whip" when chances of qualification are going to be slim enough anyway. I can't see his team turning from one who can't beat anyone of note to one that could beat Holland, Italy, and Denmark (who we could potentially get in our group!).

A new manager will have little pressure on him starting out because we will be in a tough group, which means he will be able to try things and see what works for him.

WC10 should be our goal.

Necronomicon

Don't know

Lemlin wrote:

Troussier was my hope but the FAI made their usual mess of it.

I'm so happy Troussier didn't get it. What has he done? He's bounced around the place, is Morocco his 5th international job now? I don't think he should have gone to be honest. He made a few mistakes tactically but in the end we just weren't good enough to qualify and simply don't deserve to be in Germany.

Pigman II

No

eirebhoy wrote:

He'll prove himself in time, it won't be with us (un)fortunately.

BTW - Luck plays more of a part then we'd like to think. If we has almost any other ref when we played Holland we probably wouldn't have got to the 2002 WC as RVN was denied a clear penalty.

You're starting to sound like Kerr himself now with 'luck' and the like. In football you make your own luck and that's all there is too it. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't see the big picture imho.

Everyone goes on about how crucial that win v Holland in '01 was but fact is we didn't even need to win that game and the reason we didn't need to win it was because MmcC's team had already delivered the right results up to that point.

Furthermore even had we gone 0-1 down to Holland during that game I'd at least have had the confidence and belief that under MmcC that we 'could' get an equaliser. By comparison I'd have absolutely no faith in a Kerr team digging their way out of a trailing position against opposition like that.

eirebhoy

Don't know

Pigman II wrote:

You're starting to sound like Kerr himself now with 'luck' and the like. In football you make your own luck and that's all there is too it. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't see the big picture imho.

Everyone goes on about how crucial that win v Holland in '01 was but fact is we didn't even need to win that game and the reason we didn't need to win it was because MmcC's team had already delivered the right results up to that point.

Off topic but how didn't we need to win? If we drew we'd have been level on points with Holland having the better goal difference.

whiskeyman

No

His decisions in the latter half of the Swiss game was suicidal for his Irish manager job imo.
Had he not done that, I would honestly want him to still be in the job... but that decision just mocked his whole campaign and showed he just wasnt up to it.
I know the players didnt do their bit either, but even had he gone more attack minded and we lost, I'd still back him.

Pigman II

No

eirebhoy wrote:

Off topic but how didn't we need to win? If we drew we'd have been level on points with Holland having the better goal difference.

We only needed a draw in Sep01 because Holland had already lost 1 of their 2 games v Portgual whereas we had gotten 2 draws against Portugal giving us an effective 1pt advantage over Holland. A draw in Sep01 would have kept this status-quo between ourselves and the Dutch leaving us only needing to win (by any score) v Cyprus)in our last game to pip the Dutch for 2nd place by 1point (ie us on 22 vs them on 21). As it was we still came 2nd but with a 4pt advantage (24 vs 20)

LegacyUser

The FAI will not get anyone better. Football in this country is a ****ing joke anyway because of the people that run it.

eirebhoy

Don't know

Pigman II wrote:

We only needed a draw in Sep01 because Holland had already lost 1 of their 2 games v Portgual whereas we had gotten 2 draws against Portugal giving us an effective 1pt advantage over Holland. A draw in Sep01 would have kept this status-quo between ourselves and the Dutch leaving us only needing to win (by any score) v Cyprus)in our last game to pip the Dutch for 2nd place by 1point.

Cheers.

Pigman II

No

eirebhoy wrote:

Cheers.

No worries. After our last 2 years watching the 'group of deaRth' its easy to forget there was a once time when it was actually other teams who were blowing their chance with a home defeat